August 6, 2012

Polls through the spring showed President Barack Obama outpacing Romney among female voters, although strategists from both parties say that gender gap is narrowing. A strong play for female voters at the convention should be expected.

Haley, who backed Romney in her state's first-in-the-South primary, is the youngest sitting governor in the country and her husband will deploy to Afghanistan next year. So she will probably have a strong message for military families, as well as for younger voters.

Martinez, who made history in her state and nationally when she was elected, could appeal to Hispanic women, a sizable demographic that broke for Obama four years ago. She can also address voters who feel securing the nation's Southern border is a top concern....

And totally ignore one of the most prominent and powerful woman in the Republican arena. Palin.

The 'establishment' and RINO Republicans want to cut off their nose to spite their faces. They don't want to acknowledge the grass roots and think that they can take their votes for granted. Thinking...who else are they going to vote for...Obama? Ha ha ha.

They ignore Palin and the Tea Party at their own peril.

..and...I agree with Freeman. Stop with the pandering and divisions into groups.

After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

only because he was a ((( minority ))) ie if he had been a non-qualified WASP, he would have been toast er a non-starter!

After the McCain debacle and his pathetically inept campaign, I have always said that I see Palin the role of rainmaker. The Tea Party is firmly behind Palin and if you haven't noticed the Tea Party plan of electing its candidates at the grassroots and from the bottom up is working. As they fill the new seats at the County, City, State, House and Senate levels, the old guard will gradually be pushed out. Probably not fast enough however since I think we have only a couple of years left before we hit the wall, financially and begin to see a total collapse of government and society.

I think they just did the math: She'll campaign for Mitt regardless, confined to red areas to get out the GOP vote. The convention is a national audience, and the possible downside (she makes a remark that dominates convention coverage) is just not worth it.

The ranks of African American Republicans are quite small. It's silly to expect a presidential nominee to arise at this point. It will happen when more black Americans register Republican and a qualified African American runs. (Sorry, Herman.)

I always hoped/assumed the first black President would be a Republican. I knew that a black Democrat would likely be a big city activist type filled with left-wing ideology and racial grievances. I was right about that, I just figured voters wouldn't go for it. And they wouldn't have, had they known.

There will be a black Republican president some day, and it won't be because the party was "more open" to black voters, but because black voters were more open to the GOP. And it will do more for racial progress in America than anything the Left has done since 1965.

No. She won't campaign FOR Romney. She won't campaign against him either. The focus is to load up Tea Party types in the areas where they can get something done. Senate, House, State, County, City levels. As well as taking back School Boards etc.

Since we live in California and our vote is a wasted effort anyway, my husband has told the RINOs, I mean Republicans who call for money that until Romney apologizes to Palin and includes the Tea Party platform in his campaign, they can kiss his ass and to stop calling.

I'm still bitter about Republicans taking a pass on Castle. He wasn't perfect, but he would have won you Delaware until he wanted to retire and cut off the Biden family for good. That's how you start turning a state red.

If by "Romney camp" you mean "any and all 'establishment' Republicans who support Romney in the 2012 general election against Obama, including those RINOs I don't like" then your accusation is so general and vague as to be meaningless.

You will notice that the "someone" who thinks that gimmicks like these are the insider establishment party types, i.e. the type who infest the Romney campaign. Meanwhile, the Palin faction promotes her and these people, not because they are women, but because they are right and strong and conservative.

Freeman, I dislike pandering to women too, but I'm not convinced that this counts as "pandering."

The use of the word "highlight" is (as far as I can tell) Althouse's choice, not the RNC's. Condoleezza Rice, Nikki Haley, and Susan Martinez are among the first speakers to be announced-- among others, mostly men. As far as I can tell, the RNC has not said anything about a "women" theme for the convention.

"They are some of our party's brightest stars, who have governed and led effectively and admirably in their respective roles," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in prepared remarks. "These speakers — and those that will be announced later — will help make it a truly memorable and momentous event."

He's not talking about women specifically. The fact that those 3 women (great women, who surely are among the GOP's stars or rising stars, regardless of their gender) are included isn't surprising and doesn't count as "pandering" to me. Unless you actually believe the GOP is waging a "war on women."

NB people freaking out over Palin, not all the speakers have been announced yet.

But, question: have there ever been speakers at a convention who are neither in office, nor completed their term in office?

The liberal media will refer to them as token Republican women and convince the low knowledge voters that this just proves that the Republicans really do have a war on women.

Exactly. The liberal media might frame this as "pandering," because "strong Republican woman" is like an oxymoron to them. There's no reason for us to validate that liberal spin, unless you actually think people of the caliber of Rice, Haley, and Martinez are undeserving of a spot at the convention.

If the RNC unfurls a sparkly banner that say "Grrrls Rule!" over their heads, then we'll talk about pandering.

Palin is a powerful figure in politics, doing good things (e.g. contributing to Cruz's and other Tea Party candidates' victories, using her celebrity and social media to propagate the Tea Party platform. etc.). You might call her a "kingmaker."

You could call someone like Karl Rove a "kingmaker" too, on the 'establishment' side. As far as I know, someone like Karl Rove, as powerful as he is or was, doesn't speak at a convention.

The Palin family has been involved in at least 4 or 5 reality shows, and will now be involved in another (her husband is doing a "boot camp" competition). She's a significant public figure, in ways both substantive and (IMO) frivolous. But because she resigned her governorship, I don't think she is currently a "politician" in the way Haley and Martinez are politicians-- governors, governing.

It may not be her fault that she had to resign, but resign she did, and that marks Palin's role as politician (i.e. as a candidate/ governor as opposed to a powerbroker behind the scenes).

I wouldn't mind seeing Palin speak, because IMO she's a great and charismatic speaker and I'd doubtless enjoy hearing her (her speech at the 2008 convention remains a political highlight for me). But this wailing and gnashing of teeth over her, this attachment that people have to her personally, is baffling to me. Sarah Palin not Joan of Arc.

Unfortunately, to a lot of people, she is. They see her as an emblem of the Tea Party like the French see "Marianne" as an emblem of France. IMO, that kind of personalization is a disservice to and trivialization of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is bigger than Sarah Palin, IMO a deeper, more serious, and significant political force than Palin. Palin is not the Tea Party's incarnation, and insofar as she presents herself that way (e.g. as a Tea Party martyr crucified), she's doing more harm than good to the causes she claims to champion.

Freeman, I hear you re ugly tactic of divide and conquer by targeting voter blocs but I don't think Romney has any other choice. The MSM and Obama ads have painted him as part of a war on women.

God, I hate this mediated belief system you guys give into. Don't you get that this stuff only "works" - or even exists - because (deep breath) THERE ARE NO FRIGGIN' IDEAS BEING PRESENTED TO US?!?

I don't care if you support Romney or Obama, you're supporting an empty vessel. They, both, are consumed with winning - not leading. They offer us nothing, so resort to these cheap tactics - that you guys respond to - based on the cheap tactics already being used.

It's a circle jerk of nonsense - but only they get the "happy ending."

And "We The People" deserve it for falling for it - thinking they/we are being "practical" politically.

The article reads like a gossip sheet. It's all guesses about how things might turn out and guesses about why people were invited. The "fact" content could have been relayed in two paragraphs.

Also, the comments below can only be misogynistic. Freeman has the gist of it spot on... ""Oh, a girl Republican.""Probably a Nazi.""Yeah, Nazi Stepford Wife in a stupid dress.""She said a word. What an idiot.""I know!""

My only actual contribution to this is... Martinez is only slightly less blond than I am. She's undoubtedly more Hispanic than whats-her-face is Cherokee, and she can certainly opine about matters relating to a border state, but speculation about a strategy to woo the Hispanic vote is just more noise to fill space on the part of the authors of the article.

Despite media claims that the Tea Party has gone dormant and that Sarah Palin’s influence has waned, the candidates she backs for office have an uncanny knack for winning their elections — even when they start far off the pace,…

This might be easy to dismiss if Palin made a habit of endorsing front-runners, but that’s not been the case. Ted Cruz started off at a large disadvantage to Lt. Governor David Dewhurst in practically every metric imaginable. Dewhurst had Rick Perry’s endorsement, a high profile office, tons of his own money to use in the primary fight, and at one time a huge lead in the polls. In the first round of the primary in May, Cruz only narrowly forced a runoff, at 30% and Dewhurst just a shade under 48%. The Tea Party engagement that Palin helped facilitate took Cruz from 18 points down in May to a 13-point victory this week — a remarkable 31-point turnaround in just two months.

Similarly, Palin backed Tea Party upstart Richard Mourdock against longtime incumbent Dick Lugar in Indiana’s GOP primary. Palin endorsed Mourdock late in the cycle, just a couple of weeks before the primary. Lugar had been up as much as 25 points in the polls in early 2012, but two weeks prior to her endorsement, Mourdock’s internal poll had him even with Lugar. One week after Palin endorsed Mourdock, he was 10 points up on Lugar in what the local newspaper called “a dramatic slide” for the incumbent. By the time the election rolled around one week later, Mourdock ended up with a 22-point victory over the entrenched incumbent.

Ta-dah! You're wrong. Not just wrong, but wrongy-wrong, wrong, wrong. And that's bad. But not as bad as this:

Your bitter sarcasm aside, when Reps pick an African/America as their presidential nominee, get back to me.

When Democrats pick an "African/America" [sic] who has one iota as much experience of the lot of descendents of slaves in this country as Clarence Thomas does, get back to us.

Which begs the question: Have Reps ever not nominated a WASP as their nominee? hmm, Romney lol.

You know what? Justice Thomas might have grown up speaking Gullah, but I bet he knows what it means to "beg the question." Only he'd be too polite to say "yr doin it wrng." I am not.

Must be the magic underwear ...

The day someone who routinely uses the "magic underwear" line dares to use "magic outerwear" for the niqab, or even "magic headwear" for the hijab, the yarmulke, or the Queen of England's hat, I will concede that s/he is not a bigot. Until then ...

Crack: Um, furious, look at the date of the article you linked to - it's from 2010, you moron.

Uh, yeah, Crack, the Wednesday following the 2010 General election, you know, when Harry Reid retained his Majority Leadership. Nothing in what you cited about Palin's General Election track record. I can see why.

Sorry, Crack, primary record alone no vale mierda -- no matter how many kiddy-pool insults you hurl -- unless one is some kind of fundraising grifter like O'Donnell (who was endorsed by, you know, Gov. Palin).

Come back with your little Jumpin-Bad Act when Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader.

Re: Begging the question, yea "we" had a brief discussion at another political blog a couple years ago. My usage ie the true definition is unintelligible to most people, so congrats on your and Thomas' knowledge, which btw, still doesn't make Thomas qualified for the SC.

Re: Begging the question, yea "we" had a brief discussion at another political blog a couple years ago. My usage ie the true definition is unintelligible to most people, so congrats on your and Thomas' knowledge, which btw, still doesn't make Thomas qualified for the SC.

Yet he's the best wrtier and deepest thinker on the bench presently.

OT: Can anybody explain why NOBODY has had any criminal charges brought against them in regards to the financial meltdown?

When Enron was cooking the books, "their boy" Bush managed to bring charges against the President, CEO, CFO, and several other executives.

Obama just gave the banks money for nothing and didn't do shit to fix the problem.

Can shiloh or garage explain why? Hell, why has Corzine not been charged with swindling over a billion dollars? Is giving the President money enough to make ignoring the law a solid prospect?